proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Bungle_Bear]

I am politely asking you to provide the evidence, scientific of course, that shows my assertions are ill-informed.

I don't need to repeat what others have posted many times. I'm never sure if it's arrogance, bad manners or stupidity that leads people to ignore what others write.

Until you do that, you are just blowing the usual evo smoke to hide the fact you have no scientific evidence to support the theology of the TOE.

Do you say that from willful dishonesty or genuine lack of understanding? It's quite tiresome.

 

[pitabread]

Proving by your laziness you are not willing to take 5 minuets to cut and past the evidence any evo link provides.

This is a dumb request. First of all, blatantly copy-pasting material from other sites is essentially plagiarism, which is against the rules here. Second, often times such material is quite lengthy, has specific formatting, embedded images, diagrams, etc. To ask a person to recreate that in a series of posts is ridiculous.

No, what is really happening here is you just want an excuse to avoid material so you can keep up the lie about there not being presented any scientific material or evidence.

Either that or you're just blatantly trolling. It's hard to tell sometimes.

In the end it does matter. Truth always matters.

Point is that one's opinion about a subject does not change the subject. You can reject evolution all you want. It's still going to be a foundational part of modern biology and will continue to be taught and applied as such. That's not going to change just because you don't like it.

 

[Aman777]

I'm afraid we seem to have no more to talk about friend. If you are willing to bend the words of the scriptures to mean whatever you want them to mean rather than strive to understand them as the authors intended them, we can no longer communicate. For I have a letter from Peter warning me about you. He said: as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2Peter 3:16

My heart aches for you, but Paul told me what I must do. (Titus 3:10)

False accusation, since you seem to prefer your religious views above that of what Jesus said:

Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

Jesus is saying that His Father works up to the present time but YOU seem to prefer the theology of ancient men who CLAIM God rested from ALL of His work in the past. Is God the Father working up to the present time? Of course He is and so is Jesus AND the Holy Spirit, since both of them are God. Just ask ANY Gospel preacher. It also takes the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to "create" a new creature in Christ. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16

Can you explain HOW anyone can become a Christian today, IF God has already rested from ALL of His work of creating as the following verses show?

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from ALL His work which He had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from ALL His work which God created and made.

God's rest from ALL of His work of creating is FUTURE as I posted. Your flawed religious view and false accusation is therefore refuted Scripturally. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

And humans and chimps are also related, and their DNA is evidence of that.

False, since Noah's grandsons had no other Humans (descendants of Adam) to marry. They married and produced children Gen 6:4 with the sons of God (prehistoric people) who had been on Earth for Millions of years BEFORE the Ark arrived. The Smithsonian is full of their bones. That is WHY today's Humans (descendants of Adam) have the DNA of prehistoric people in our genetics. Your incomplete notion is therefore refuted. Try again?

 

[Aman777]

That is the news they told you, yes, that the message came from God.

Again I hate to be the one that breaks it to you, but that was fake news.

False, unless you can explain HOW ancient men, who lived thousands of years before Science, correctly wrote that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from water as Gen 1:21 shows and that Science confirmed last year. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

Godless people trying to eliminate God from His own Creation changed that scientific FACT into "everything natural came from water". That's the way Godless people think. IF you don't like what God told us, then just change the meaning of words and then force teach this Lie to innocent children in the Public Schools as the "scientific" definition. That's fake news.

 

[Aman777]

The evidence has been posted here. And we can continue on with more, but first, where do you and I agree? Do you agree with any or all of the following?

1. The earth is billions of years old.
2. Animals have been here on earth for hundreds of millions of years.
3. Animals began simple, and with eons of time, became progressively more like modern life.
4. Evolution from a common ancestor is the best explanation for life on earth.

1. Amen. 4.53 Billion according to most.
2. Amen. Millions of years BEFORE prehistoric people.
3. Amen. They descended from their common ancestors.
4. Amen, IF you are speaking of Humans whose common ancestor Adam was made BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos. Not so with ANY creature who descended from Water since the false ToE is the biggest Satanic Lie ever told. Soon, it will be refuted and only the Scoffers of the last days will cling to their Evol Religious views. 2 Peter 3:3-7

 

[Aman777]

I agree except man does not have an intelligence level like God's.

I am not saying that man is as high intellectually as God...BUT...according to Scripture, Humans (descendants of Adam) have an intelligence like God's with the ability to know good and evil, according to the Lord:

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil:

Only God and Humans have this ability to Judge, which requires higher intelligence than animals. This is important since Human intelligence is the highest above that of ANY other creature. It's because Humans are destined to have dominion or rule over every living thing when Jesus returns. Gen 1:28

 

[Skreeper]

If you were interested in proving me wrong, you would take 5 minuets to cut and paste some evidence in your link.

Your unwillingness to do that shows you can't or you are just here to argue about things you know nothing about(science) instead of educating yourself.

Only evidence educates. All you have done is parrot the usual evo talking points, which are not based on science.

I know your ilk and I ain't in the mood for pigeon chess.

 

[Aman777]

Someone had to start the human race. If you don't like Adam for it, tell me how the human race originated.

They cannot since they know that Occam's Razor awaits those who spew the evol view.

 

[BradB]

False accusation, since you seem to prefer your religious views above that of what Jesus said:

Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

Jesus is saying that His Father works up to the present time but YOU seem to prefer the theology of ancient men who CLAIM God rested from ALL of His work in the past.

No my friend I "prefer" what God tells us in His word. "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made." (Genesis 2:1-3)

Obviously the text doesn't mean that God just quit doing anything. But it clearly means that God was DONE with the work of creation. This has nothing to do with "theology" of ancient men and everything to do with the plain and clear reading of the text. Jesus told us that the Father still works but He didn't say anything about the Father still creating anything. That is you twisting Jesus' words to mean what you want them to mean rather than what they actually mean.

 

[doubtingmerle]

4. Amen, IF you are speaking of Humans whose common ancestor Adam was made BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos.

Oh Camila, Camila, see what you get when you start a thread like this? Not only do we hear of garden variety creationism but we learn all about robot penguins, x-Ray vision, disdain for reading science, biological watches, and the concept that Adam lived before the Big Bang. You created a monster!

Maybe next time you should stick with what science knows.

 

[BradB]

In fact at any point on Venus the length of a day, measured from mid-day to mid-day, is about 116¾ Earth days; this is a consequence of the retrograde rotation of Venus, and you can calculate it using the formula for the synodic period.

However, the length of the second, which is the SI unit of time, on Venus would be the same as it is on Earth, namely '9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at a temperature of 0 K' - http://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html . This shows that time is not 'very relative to your base line'; its fundamental unit can be defined and measured anywhere in the universe.

Not sure how any of this changes what I said?

(added)
According to the Base Units of the International System, the second is defined as "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." The thing to keep in mind here is this is what we as a people have agreed internationally to call a basic unit of time measurement. Even though such a basic unit might be the same for us anywhere in the universe it does not logically mean that if anyone else exists they would have decided to use this same standard of measure. Thus my "base line" comment still stands.

 

[Spirit Child of God]

How do you atheist and science expect to find evidence of my most high Spirit God when you are both spirit blind? You cannot find evidence of my spirit God with the eyes of your matter and you stupid PhD and MSc! You can only find evidence of my spirit God with your single eye, the eye of your spirit! Matter cannot detect spirit, only spirit can! But how can you and science ever achieve this when you don’t believe you are a spirit with a body? You see yourself as a blob of monkey matter; believing you empower yourself, when you can die in the next heartbeat! If you believe you empower yourself; then why don’t you empower yourself and live forever just the way you are? In all your high education, you look only at the functions of creation, and you reject the intelligence of the power source! Do you realize how spirit blind and extremely foolish you atheist and science really are? You are looking for evidence of my spirit God, when you are both spirit blind! How is it possible for you spirit blind atheist and science to ever find any evidence of my most high Spirit God in your spirit blindness? How much more stupid can you spirit blind monkey people get? The spiritually blind are leading the spiritually blind! Education we acquire from man; intelligence is a gift from God; it comes from your spirit, and I pray God will bless you all with it; because education has nothing to do with intelligence! I continue to pray for the salvation of your spirit, and that God will open your single eye, so you can find all the evidence you need of his existence in all life; not just yours! Take care and God bless!

 

[BradB]

There are no minds I know of that are infinite. All minds (being the product of biological living beings) are a product of their biological underpinnings. Do you have any evidence of a disembodied mind? This is a thought experiment, right?

Who said that God was just a disembodied mind? We know through observation that the universe requires an infinite source, and the characteristics of the universe tells us this infinite source must possess intelligence.

 

[BradB]

Exactly so. If we observed a rock behaving in that way we could reasonably assume that there was intention. The problem with ID is that, in effect, they want to assume intention just by observing the rock lying there. Again, the point is this: design can be inferred under certain circumstances. Under other circumstances it cannot. Denying the validity of ID is not the same as denying the presence of design, it is only a denial that design can be inferred without the usual indications. Sometimes we can detect design, sometimes we can't; that's all. Design is purpose. It is not complexity or functionality or superficial resemblance to objects known to be designed. If we can determine that an object is produced by intention, we can infer design. Sometimes we cannot reasonably so infer--but even then design cannot be ruled out.


And that gets us back to the issue: scientists believe they have identified a competent natural mechanism for producing that code.

Specificity is anything that has intent or purpose. A rock lying on the ground has no intent or purpose that we could observe. This doesn't mean that someone didn't put it there for use as a hammer later but we would not know it until we observed it being used. However if we found an object that we recognized as a claw hammer we would have a recognition response from previous experience that told us this object has a specific purpose. We do not need to see it in use in this case. Likewise ID does not just find any o'l rock laying around and call it specified. We observe the fine tuned nature of the laws of physics that are at the exact parameters needed for life to even exist and recognize these parameters are not merely chance. For example the resonance frequency required to create carbon (the building blocks of life) is so exact that even renound physicist and known dedicated atheist Fred Hoyle had to admit the universe is a "put up job" and required some sort of capital I - intelligence. We see the arrangement of the universe and solar system, and all the parameters of the earth system itself that must be exactly as they are in the exact way they are at the exact same time just to support life here. And to top it off we look at the code found in the arrangement of the nucleotides of the DNA molecule in all life and see a code that warps our most sophisticated computer software programs by comparison. All these things scream undeniably there is an Intelligent Designer. Hardly just a rock on the ground.

 

[xianghua]

That's not what I asked. I asked you to prove to me that cars can reproduce. Show me an example of that happening in the real world.

again: i talk about ic systems. i dont need to show a self replicating car to prove the existence of a ic system. since ic system exist in both living and non- living things.

 

[xianghua]

Do you or do you not agree that animals can do some things that watches cannot do? Please answer.

yes i agree. how its has any connection to the existence of ic system?

 

[pitabread]

i dont need to show a self replicating car to prove the existence of a ic system.

Yes you do. You keep bringing up the concept of self-replicating cars, so now you have to prove that they exist.

since ic system exist in both living and non- living things.

Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated to be valid with respect to biological systems. On top of that irreducible complexity is not synonymous with something being un-evolvable.

But you've already had these discussions and you don't care.

 

[xianghua]

Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated to be valid with respect to biological systems. On top of that irreducible complexity is not synonymous with something being un-evolvable.

realy? so lets take the eye example. do you agree that a minimal light detector need at least several parts to be functional? and if so: how it can evolve stepwise?

 

[Speedwell]

W

realy? so lets take the eye example. do you agree that a minimal light detector need at least several parts to be functional? and if so: how it can evolve stepwise?

We've already had that discussion, too, several times. You don't care about it, either.